Pet therapy in the emergency department and ambulatory care: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

• Published in: Academic emergency medicine Vol. 29; no. 8; pp. 1008 - 1023
• Main Authors: Gaudet, Lindsay A., Elliott, Sarah A., Ali, Samina, Kammerer, Elise, Stauffer, Brandy, Felkar, Bailey, Scott, Shannon D., Dennett, Liz, Hartling, Lisa
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Des Plaines Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.08.2022
• Subjects: Ambulatory care; Animal assisted therapy; Anxiety; Emergency medical care; Meta-analysis; Mixed methods research; Pain; Patients; Stress; Systematic review
• ISSN: 1069-6563; 1553-2712
• DOI: 10.1111/acem.14421

Background Pet therapy, or animal‐assisted interventions (AAIs), has demonstrated positive effects for patients, families, and health care providers (HCPs) in inpatient settings. However, the evidence supporting AAIs in emergency or ambulatory care settings is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of AAIs on patient, family, and HCP experience in these settings. Methods We searched (from inception to May 2020) Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, plus gray literature, for studies assessing AAIs in emergency and ambulatory care settings on: (1) patient and family anxiety/distress or pain and (2) HCP stress. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were done in duplicate with conflicts adjudicated by a third party. Random‐effects meta‐analyses are reported as mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as appropriate. Results We included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 341 patients, 146 HCPs, 122 child caregivers), four before–after (83 patients), and one mixed‐method study (124 patients). There was no effect across three RCTs measuring patient‐reported anxiety/distress (n = 380; SMD = –0.36, 95% CI = –0.95 to 0.23, I2 = 81%), while two before–after studies suggested a benefit (n = 80; SMD = –1.95, 95% CI = –2.99 to –0.91, I2 = 72%). Four RCTs found no difference in measures of observed anxiety/distress (n = 166; SMD = –0.44, 95% CI = –1.01 to 0.13, I2 = 73%) while one before–after study reported a significant benefit (n = 60; SMD = –1.64, 95% CI = –2.23 to –1.05). Three RCTs found no difference in patient‐reported pain (n = 202; MD = –0.90, 95% CI = –2.01 to 0.22, I2 = 68%). Two RCTs reported positive but nonsignificant effects on HCP stress. Conclusions Limited evidence is available on the effectiveness of AAIs in emergency and ambulatory care settings. Rigorous studies using global experience‐oriented (or patient‐identified) outcome measures are required.